Appeals court examines whether DCF provided reasonable disability accommodations in parental‑rights appeal
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Mother’s attorney argued DCF failed to make reasonable accommodations for cognitive disabilities and that additional supports might have enabled reunification; DCF countered it repeatedly offered services and that the mother declined or failed to engage, leaving the court to weigh record evidence of housing instability, missed visits and substance use history.
The Appeals Court heard an appeal in a termination‑of‑parental‑rights case that turned largely on whether the Department of Children and Families provided reasonable accommodations for a parent with cognitive disabilities.
Lois Farmer, representing the mother, said the department failed to implement accommodations recommended in a neuropsychological report — including a parent partner and tailored oversight — and that the mother’s progress after obtaining counsel showed the department had not timely provided appropriate supports. "Had there been the intervention and as recommended by the neuropsychologist, a parent partner, which was never offered to mother," Farmer told the panel, "she could have developed into being able to consistently provide fitness."
Robert Fairbairn, arguing for DCF, described repeated efforts to assist the mother: offers of treatment placements, long supervised visits, transportation help and direct outreach by social workers. He said that at numerous points the mother rejected offers or failed to follow through and that the record shows long‑standing housing instability and limited visits (the department characterized visitation as seven visits in an extended period).
Child counsel Carrie Bagnall urged deference to the trial court’s determination that termination served the child’s best interests, describing the child as thriving in pre‑adoptive placement and noting the mother’s inconsistent engagement prior to trial. The panel asked point‑blank whether additional process accommodations during trial (remote appearances or continuances) would have been appropriate; the court record reflects the judge considered accommodations and that the case record included a late neuropsychological evaluation.
The court took the arguments under advisement; the appeal raises recurring questions about the timing of ADA‑related requests, the department’s obligations to identify and implement accommodations, and how appellate courts review whether reasonable efforts were made in complex dependency cases.